Wednesday, 31 August 2011

Libya: £1 million bounty for Col Gaddafi - dead or alive
A £1 million bounty has been offered to anyone who captures Col Muammar Gaddafi — dead or alive.

As the hunt for the deposed dictator continued, the rebel leadership also offered members of his inner circle an amnesty if they turn him in.

The reward, which was put up by a wealthy Libyan businessmen, has been approved by the National Transitional Council (NTC) — the country’s de facto government — which is desperate to capture Gaddafi and bring and end to the six-month revolution.

Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who heads the council, said: “The NTC supports the initiative of businessmen who are offering two million dinars (£1 million) for the capture of Muammar Gaddafi, dead or alive.”

Gaddafi claimed to have made a “tactical” withdrawal from his Bab al-Azizia compound as the rebel forces closed in. In a message to his opponents he even claimed to have taken a discreet tour of the capital without feeling in any danger.

Throughout the day fresh fighting erupted in areas where Gaddafi was rumoured to be hiding. Rebels convinced that he had taken refuge in an underground bunker near the Rixos Hotel —close to his Bab al-Azizia compound — met heavy resistance from loyalists who have vowed to fight to the death.

************************

I wonder who the wealthy Libyan buisnessman is, and why he hates Gadaffi so much.

I do not think the UK should have become involved in all this. I really don't understand what this has got to do with us. Neither did I understand why Jack Straw and his cronies allowed Abdel Baset al-Megrahi out of prison on compassionate grounds. I must say, in my dealings with Jack Straw, Lord Falconer ect I have not found them to be compassionate men, on the contrary, both those men allowed me to be abused by a man I have formally accused of rape to Stafford Police, and allowed to use thye Secret Family Courts as a means of further harrassing me, colluding with court officials to persecute me, as they did in 2005, by keeping me in a room against my will, threatening me if I did not sign papers which I didnt understand, because of all the small print, threatening me that my family would be bust up, that I would be put in prison or St Georges Psychiatric Hospital, mocking and taunting me so much that I was crying, screaming and banging my head repeatedly against the wall.

Jack Straw and Lord Falconer and many other MPs were fully aware of how I was tortured, but they did absolutly nothing to help me, on the contrary, I discovered that every time I contacted those people to help me, things got even nastier for me in the Secret Family Courts, it was very much as if someone was directing the Judge to twist the thumbscrews a bit tighter. And a very curious remark made by one of my many judges confirms that idea for me.

So I really do not understand this notion that Jack Straw has any compassion. All I can say is that I never saw any of it during the years I was corresponding with him and Falconer and Bridget Prentice ect, and I am a victim of Pindown and nothing to do with any plane hijacking or terrorism or anything. Just a survivor of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse. Straw also refused to help the Jersey Haut de la Garenne Pindown survivors as well. It seems that Jack Straw thinks that survivors of child abuse are the lowest form of humanity, from what I have personally experienced of his "compassion"

I want an apology for the dreadful way I have been treated, as a child and as an adult. I want an apology.

Oprah Winfrey embraces a fake priest with ties to convicted
Nazi War Criminals and convicted terrorists and which fake
priest is an apologist for a terrorist who ordered bombs
planted in Washington against Justice Dept. officials and
threatened FBI agents and their families.

Oprah Winfrey endorses and (everyday on her radio show)
promotes a book whose co-author/scribe headed a section of
a criminal pedophile organization known as MK-ULTRA
which allegedly used illegal drugs on children and used
children as sex slaves and for other inhuman experiments

We are all very familiar with the celebrity personality known as Oprah Winfrey. While Oprah's show does have on guests
who have knowledge and wisdom such as Doctor Oz, there are other guests on her show who have the opposite. The
question is when does a show like Oprah's talk show cross the line from education into the arena of propaganda.
Another question, when does a talk show host cross the line and endorse or even champion some of her guests and
their schemes when those schemes are clearly fraudulent or represent something ghastly, as has happened with the
Oprah Winfrey show.

First, a little history on Oprah Winfrey:

In the mid 1980's, a new television personality hit the air waves--it was Oprah Winfrey. She conducted herself in a
humble and concerned fashion. She had different personalities on her show and some of them were rather nefarious
such as members of the Ku Klux Klan. These yahoos were not given a forum on her show for propaganda as Oprah
zealously challenged their dogma. Oprah also had experts on self-help on her show. People often had a opportunity to
make some kind of challenge to what they heard if they disagreed. Oprah's and her show became a smash hit and
Oprah became very wealthy as well. Oprah was even handed and showed that she did not let her fame and fortune go
to her head. However, in the mid 1990's, something changed in Oprah and her show. Oprah started down the same
road that many others had followed. Oprah started from modest beginnings, but as she became more wealthy,
influential and powerful, she started losing her moral edge. Many had done the same thing such as Reverend Jim
Jones (of Jonestown massacre fame) whose ministry was originally aimed at helping people, but he changed into
something else as he too became more powerful. In Oprah's case, more and more, Oprah lost her humbleness and
showed more arrogance. Oprah even started making frequent boasts about how much money and material wealth she
held. Oprah started showing unabashed affection and pandering to those of Hollywood celebrity status, while generally
exhibiting more detachment toward ordinary folk. The show started going downhill, but her ratings either rose or stayed
the same. Oprah started exalting guests, who held wide popularity, but who's intellectual honesty was dubious at best.
Finally, matters hit a new low as Oprah started championing people with not only dubious credentials, but with even
more dubious practices. More than that, Oprah decided that fair and balanced was passe as she started
propagandizing for these favorites of hers, ignoring damning evidence about her exalted guests, and stifling dissent
whenever possible. Oprah's show became as stale as old donuts--a show that was once sweet has now gone stale. This
is now the new Oprah show but unfortunately, not the better Oprah

On her February 2007 show, Oprah hawked their Secret book and DVD. In addition to the half-truths and outright
falsehoods of these people, they praised another Nazi in their book. They praised Henry Ford. While Henry Ford did
build cars, he was also a fervent admirer of Adolf Hitler and provided material aid to the Nazi war effort (against the
United States). Ford spent millions of his own money to promote Nazi propaganda and anti-Semitism in this country.
Ford even received an award from Adolph Hitler himself. Yet, this is the person that Oprah has allowed to be implicitly
praised on her show.
Ellen DeGeneres
Wernher Von Braun in the center but not wearing his Nazi officer uniform
Hero from "The Secret" people, Henry Ford receiving his Nazi medal given to him by Adolph Hitler
through Nazi diplomats.
Oprah's daliance with Nazis and Nazism did not end with "The Secret". Oprah has also entertained fake religious
leaders with ties to convicted Nazi war criminals and mass murderers, officers and members of Hitler's elite Death
Squads, convicted terrorists, repressive and murderous dictators. In 2001, Oprah venerated fake spiritual leader, "The
Dalai Lama". Which brings us to the second secret of Oprah's.
The Secret did not stop there in just praising Nazis. The Secret, with Oprah's help went on to make many tens of millions
of dollars. They did this through their book, DVD's and a pyramid-type scheme called "The Secret Briefcase". While
perhaps legal, The Secret people said there was a 100 million dollar pot for everyone to cash in on, if they spent about
$2,000 to buy "a Secret brief case". (The details can be found on the internet). At this point, some of the Secret
schemes and some of the people associated with "The Secret" are the subject of world wide criminal investigations and
lawsuits for fraud). One of the "stars" of "The Secret", James Ray, who was relentlessly promoted by Oprah Winfrey, is
James Ray. James Ray had a search warrant served on him by Arizona police who accuse him of negligent homicide in
the so called Sweat Lodge Murders.

To sell their dubious claims, "The Secret" people made outrageous claims about Physics and particularly Quantum
Physics which they say proves their claims. It sounds nice...but it is simply not true. For example, they claim that "the
Law of Attraction exists in Physics. They claim that "likes attract likes". Unfortunately, there is no proven theory in
existence today of that. Likes Don't attract likes, in fact they repel each other. Such as two of the same electric charges
or same magnetic poles. Oprah raised no questions about this junk science.

The Secret people recommended that in order to stay healthy that you avoid associating or even looking at people who
have health problems. The same advice for overweight people--don't talk to them.

"The Secret", on Oprah, primarily focused upon making large amounts of money in almost any way possible--seemingly
without any regard to ethics. This is of course consistent with their glorification of Nazis. No protest from Oprah about
this.

Much of the debunking of "The Secret" was witnessed in a spring episode of Nightline with Cynthia MacFadden
To many people born well after World War II, titles of SS Officer and Storm Trooper may seem
almost like cartoons out of Star Wars. However, those born before or just after World War II
know the horror associated with those members of Hitler's elite killer organizations, to which the
Dalai Lama's top advisors were officers in. Below are some scenes to remind us of just what the
Dalai Lama's close associates and were about when they became officers in Hitler's SS.
In the pictures below, in the center is Oprah Winfrey embracing the Dalai Lama.

Top Right: Dalai Lama with convicted terrorist Shoko Asahar, whose cult placed poisonous Sarin gas
into the Tokyo subway injuring 5,000 and killing another dozen more people. The Dalai Lama only has
praise for Shoko and his dangerous cult particularly after receiving over 1.3 million dollars in gifts.

Top Middle Top: Augustine Pinochet. He was the military dictator of Chile who murdered many
thousands of people. He is also the same person who with the aid of his friend, the Dalai Lama was able
to avoid being prosecuted for these crimes.

Left Top: The Dalai Lama with Miguel Serrano whom he often visited. Miguel was the head of the
Argentina's Nazi Party and who wrote anti-Semitic books praising Hitler as a god.

Middle Lower Left: The Dalai Lama embracing and promoting the book of convicted Nazi War Criminal
and Mass murderer, Dr. Bruno Beger. Bruno Beger was an officer in Hitler's elite SS Death Squads and
performed inhuman medical experiments on inmates at Auschwitz Death Camp and then had each and
every one of his "patients" gassed to death.

Middle Right: The Dalai Lama with his top advisor and friend, SS Death Squad leader, Heinrich Harrer.

Lower Picture: The Dalai Lama's friend and top advisor,Heinrich Harrer standing next to his friend and
idol, Adolph Hitler.

Picture in Middle: Oprah Winfrey embracing Heinrich Harrer's friend, The Dalai Lama.
The scenes above concerning the guests championed by Oprah are very grim. Does Oprah championing these people
mean that Oprah is necessarily a Nazi sympathizer? No. If Oprah Winfrey was aware of what some of her guests were
and are involved in or whom they had close association with, or just what kind of people they praise, she would be
unlikely to be their champions. So what happened with Oprah and why did she champion these people and even not
permit dissent on her show about them, and allow herself to be used as a propaganda tool? The simplest explanation is
that Oprah has very poor judgment and does a very sloppy job of doing her homework before she endorses someone.
There are other poignant cases of this, such as her hiring of child molesters to run her African school. However, Oprah
has apologized for this and almost anyone could be scammed by a clever child molester. The November 11, 2007 issue
of Access Hollywood has said that Oprah recommended people to fake doctor Jan Adams, who later killed his patients
through malpractice. However, Oprah has denied those charges.

However, the other claims here of Oprah's endorsing and championing fake religious figures with terrorist and Nazis ties
and her championing and infomercials and propaganda promotion of people who praise Nazis and promote fraudulent
claims to sell their dubious products is unmistakable. Moreover, Oprah has never apologized for her behavior. Worse
than that, Oprah has even tried to justify the fraud of these people by saying that using any means possible they were
able to spread information, (that others developed before them). In other words, Oprah is saying that the ends justifies
using any means, foul or otherwise to gain an end. Therefore, when Oprah speaks on behalf of Barack Obama, she is
likely to apply this same doctrine and say anything at all, just to get her candidate elected.

I
Contact Information:

Email
The First Secret about Oprah Winfrey Revealed:

"The Secret" (or rather how to be greedy and promote hate while
pretending to be spiritual)
Above is a scene from Dora Concentration camp
where inmates murdered by Von Braun's guards
lie rotting on the ground. This was the "Secret"
that Von Braun tried to keep covered up.
"The Secret" people championed by Oprah give
much attention and fan-fare to those who they
believe were successful financially regardless of
how it occurred. Above, Werhner Von Braun
reaped huge financial rewards through this
development of rockets using slave labor.
Those men and women and child laborers are
seen above as Von Braun disposed of these
people when they no longer served him.
Mainly because "The Secret" people appeared on Ellen and Oprah and they praised WernherVon Braun who was a
brutal slave owner and mass murderer who was an officer in Hitler's terrorist organization known as the Shutzstafel or
SS. Von Braun was the lord of life and death at a Nazi concentration camp known as Camp Mittlebau-Dora. Von Braun
was responsible or the very least in complicity with the deaths of over 20,000 men, women and children who were either
worked to death, starved to death, tortured to death or outright executed. This was the person praised on the Ellen
DeGeneres show and then the Oprah Show. Below are some of the pictures of the handiwork of the man praised on
Oprah and on Ellen by "The Secret" cult. There were almost no survivors from "The Secret's" hero, Wernher Von Braun
Death Camp.
As gruesome is are the pictures above, to this day, Oprah Winfrey nor Ellen DeGeneres will not criticize "The Secret"
people for their veneration of mass murderer, Wernher Von Braun.

In fact, instead of criticizing "The Secret's"passion for mass murderers, Oprah decided to have two full television shows
in early 2007 (later 3 more radio shows) dedicated to propagandizing for these Secret people and ex-Secret people.
More than that, she endorsed what they do and even championed it and turned her shows into cheesy info-mercials for
these people.
Below is a picture of Oprah Winfrey hawking "The Secret" , a book which praises Nazis.
They claimed that they had some secret knowledge passed to them from ancient sources, never before revealed to the
world. They called this Secret, "The Law of Attraction" (which was originally coined by Christina Rosetti many years
prior). On Ellen's show, they praised Nazi SS officer and mass murderer, Wernher Von Braun, as they had also done
in their book, by the same name. Ellen DeGeneres (and later Oprah Winfrey) said nothing about this adoration of Nazis
then or now in any kind of protest. Why should Ellen DeGeneres and Oprah Winfrey protest the praise of Werner Von
Braun?
Oprahs Second Secret Truth--Oprah embracing the Dalai Lama
who has terrorist and Nazi war criminal ties.
To find out more about the Dalai Lama and his ties to Nazis and terrorists,
then Click Here
www.NewSpiritualBible.com
Oprah Winfrey
It is noted that while Oprah says she champions abused children, she had nothing to say about those "The Secret"
people on her show, who have nothing but praise for one of the worst child abusers in the history of the world. The
hpocrisy of Oprah Winfrey is nothing short of breath-taking. This is the same Oprah Winfrey in her campaigning for
Barack Obama preaches positive change through Obama. If allowing a forum for those who praise evil without
permitting criticism of that evil, is what Oprah is speaking about, then one should consider carefully as to whether to
vote for Obama or not. Oprah would be better off campaigning for George Bush instead, if this is how she thinks.
Click Here to view a video
about Oprah Winfrey and Barack
Obama entitled:

"Voting the nightmare into reality"
Oprah Winfrey
The following pages, with pictures and references will show that Oprah Winfrey's show has a much darker side to it
than Oprah is willing to admit. The talk show hostess has been playing a major role in the Barack Obama campaign.
But is that role one of control? Is Oprah's close association with Obama a strong negative for Barack Obama? Many
people might at first blush say that her role will help Obama. However, the dark secrets (un-secrets) that plague Oprah,
to be revealed here, may show that Oprah may actually scuttle Barack Obama's campaign instead of helping it.

See the pictures below of one the "heroes" of "The Secret", which is championed by
Oprah Winfrey. They include Nazi SS Officer Wernher Von Braun. Other pictures
include the handiwork of Von Braun at his Death Camp.
Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres and "The Secret"
In November 2006, talk show host, Ellen DeGeneres had guests on her show which called themselves: "The Secret".
Click Here to visit a website about Oprah Winfrey and what she calls her daily lessons from a book A
Course in Miracles, reportedly written by a person who collaborated in writing the book with someone the head of
program in the CIA on drug and mind control experiments to create a perfect assassin, who personally spoke with Jesus
Christ...supposedly. The collaborator of Oprah's prized book headed an organization MK-ULTRA, which leaders of the
group allegedly forced children to take illegal drugs and sexually molested children as young as 7, in the interest of
national security, or so they were allegedly told. For more on these alleged atrocities and Oprah's championing of the
book co-written by the head of this perverted organization, Click Here
Oprah Winfrey's Third and perhaps worst
Secret
Oprah Winfrey has announced she will spend everyday for a year starting on January 1, 2008, promoting a book
entitled, "A Course in Miracles". This book was scribed or written in part by Dr. William Thetford, the head of a section of
the notorious MK-ULTRA program for the CIA. This program was designed to create perfect assassins, by the use of
torture, drugs and mind-control. There is an avalanche of evidence that leaders in that program indulged in sex slavery
of young children and performed inhuman medical experiments upon them. For Oprah to be pushing a book written in
part by such a person heading such a sinister organization is shameful. Because of the huge amount of documentation
of these atrocities, other pages here will be cited for further scrutiny. Click Here to be linked to another page
detailing Oprah's newest fascination and the worlds' horror.

Dr. Wernher von Braun
First Center Director, July 1, 1960 - Jan. 27, 1970
Wernher von Braun (1912–1977) was one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s. As a youth he became enamored with the possibilities of space exploration by reading the science fiction of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and from the science fact writings of Hermann Oberth, whose 1923 classic study, Die Rakete zu den Planetenräumen (By Rocket to Space), prompted young von Braun to master calculus and trigonometry so he could understand the physics of rocketry. From his teenage years, von Braun had held a keen interest in space flight, becoming involved in the German rocket society, Verein fur Raumschiffarht (VfR), as early as 1929. As a means of furthering his desire to build large and capable rockets, in 1932 he went to work for the German army to develop ballistic missiles. While engaged in this work, von Braun received a Ph.D. in physics on July 27, 1934.

Von Braun is well known as the leader of what has been called the “rocket team” which developed the V–2 ballistic missile for the Nazis during World War II. The V–2s were manufactured at a forced labor factory called Mittelwerk. Scholars are still reassessing his role in these controversial activities. Click for details.

The brainchild of von Braun’s rocket team operating at a secret laboratory at Peenemünde on the Baltic coast, the V–2 rocket was the immediate antecedent of those used in space exploration programs in the United States and the Soviet Union. A liquid propellant missile extending some 46 feet in length and weighing 27,000 pounds, the V-2 flew at speeds in excess of 3,500 miles per hour and delivered a 2,200-pound warhead to a target 500 miles away. First flown in October 1942, it was employed against targets in Europe beginning in September 1944. By the beginning of 1945, it was obvious to von Braun that Germany would not achieve victory against the Allies, and he began planning for the postwar era.

Before the Allied capture of the V–2 rocket complex, von Braun engineered the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test vehicles, to the Americans. For fifteen years after World War II, von Braun worked with the U.S. Army in the development of ballistic missiles. As part of a military operation called Project Paperclip, he and his rocket team were scooped up from defeated Germany and sent to America where they were installed at Fort Bliss, Texas. There they worked on rockets for the U.S. Army, launching them at White Sands Proving Ground, New Mexico. In 1950 von Braun’s team moved to the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Ala., where they built the Army’s Jupiter ballistic missile.

In 1960, his rocket development center transferred from the Army to the newly established NASA and received a mandate to build the giant Saturn rockets. Accordingly, von Braun became director of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that would propel Americans to the Moon.

Von Braun also became one of the most prominent spokesmen of space exploration in the United States during the 1950s. In 1970, NASA leadership asked von Braun to move to Washington, D.C., to head up the strategic planning effort for the agency. He left his home in Huntsville, Ala., but in 1972 he decided to retire from NASA and work for Fairchild Industries of Germantown, Md. He died in Alexandria, Va., on June 16, 1977.

The policeman at the centre of the Jersey inquiry tells Gordon Rayner he will not be cowed by threats

Bent cops. Hostile politicians. Buried bodies. And at the centre of it, a maverick lawman who has received death threats for daring to uncover dark secrets from the past.

Sounds familiar? It is, of course, a formula that has been endlessly revisited by film and television scriptwriters. But for Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper this is real life in the unlikely setting of Jersey, as he and his team try to discover the truth about appalling physical and sexual abuse allegedly meted out to more than 100 children in a former care home.

Although Harper is considered a hero by those who trust him enough to reveal the details of their childhood at the Haut de la Garenne home, there are those on the island who see the Ulsterman as an enemy of the state, an "outsider" poking his nose in where it is not welcome.

Since he became involved in the investigation, he has had more than 140 poison-pen letters - one even threatening to burn down his house and firebomb his car.
Related Links
You might like:Human slaughterhouse discovered in Tripoli27 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)Riots: Sony warehouse raid ' was professional heist'30 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)Boyfriend feared drowned after teenage girl washes up on beach30 Aug 2011(Telegraph News)

From the WebFORM THE WEB:Incredible Photos of Russian Peasants in the 1800s31 Dec 1969(Environmental Graffiti)8 Fun Ways to Keep Your Family Fit18 Aug 2010(iVillage.com)Lady Gaga’s American Horror Story24 Aug 2011(ELLE.com)[what's this]
Ministers in the island's parliament have ridiculed him, referring to him as "Lenny Henry", and earlier this month Jersey's two most senior politicians used keynote speeches to suggest that the real scandal was not child abuse but the media coverage of the case which Harper has unapologetically courted.

Until now, Harper has refused to be drawn into a fight, but on Wednesday he could barely contain his anger as he faced the cameras to rebut suggestions that he had deliberately withheld a laboratory report that suggested a "skull fragment" found at the home might in fact be a piece of wood or coconut shell.

Not only had he not seen the lab report, he said, but cuts on some of the 30 pieces of bone and seven milk teeth discovered so far by his team pointed to "a homicide or unexplained death". He even produced one of the teeth to press home his point.

His message was clear: no amount of criticism will prevent him from pursuing the truth.

In his most candid interview to date, Harper, 56, admits that the increasingly personal attacks on him have taken their toll and concedes that his retirement later this year will come as a relief.

"Make no mistake, this is the most stressful job I have ever had," says Harper, who worked for the Metropolitan Police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Strathclyde Police before taking this posting in Jersey six years ago.

"It's more stressful than working in south London, Glasgow, the Springfield and Falls Roads in Belfast.

"I have had not only threats to have my house and car burned, there have been rumours spread about my private life, letters written by people suggesting I'm having an affair… It's just constant. People have called me a liar, and at one point a letter was circulated to the newspapers in London saying I was guilty of abuse.

"So yes, I have taken it personally and I am finding it quite difficult."

Like the old-fashioned copper he is, Harper has, on the whole, refused to take up valuable police resources investigating the smear campaign, or even the threats against his property.

He finally drew the line, however, when one critic persistently made obscene gestures at him when he was out with his wife, Christina - and made sure the person in question was given a warning.

"It's had an effect on my wife as well… it's not pleasant and it's just unremitting," he says. "I do not have a problem with the job and doing the job, but it's all the surrounding nonsense.

"There are those who are just waiting for us to make a mistake. We are doing what we have to do, and there is no way we can backtrack on that. A child or children lies buried in the cellars under Haut de la Garenne, and no one would expect us to just walk away from that, even if it eventually turns out that those bones are very old."

Speaking in the TV lounge of Haut de la Garenne, Harper admits he was unprepared for the "venom" directed at him, and has been surprised at where it has come from.

While he has had widespread support from "ordinary people", and singles out the island's home affairs minister for praise, he adds: "I don't need to comment on the rest of the politicians; what they have said speaks for themselves."

He is too discreet to mention anyone by name, but it was Jersey's health and social services minister Ben Shenton (whose job is to combat child abuse) who sent an email to cabinet colleagues in March ridiculing Harper and saying: "My wife keeps referring to Lenny Harper as Lenny Henry - I don't think she's far wrong."

The question has also been raised publicly as to whether Harper had ever been investigated for "adult abuse".

Earlier this month the island's bailiff Sir Philip Bailhache (who acts as the speaker in Parliament) said in his annual Liberation Day speech that many journalists continued to write about the island's "so-called child abuse scandal.

All child abuse… is scandalous, but it is the unjustified and remorseless denigration of Jersey and her people that is the real scandal". The Chief Minister Frank Walker, the equivalent of Jersey's prime minister, has also rounded on those who have drawn attention to the case, accusing them of "trying to shaft Jersey internationally".

"They don't like me," says Harper. "That much is obvious. I don't know the reason why. I'm quite sure none of them has got any connection with it but it's beyond me."

Since the Second World War, Jersey, which as a Crown Dependency makes its own laws, has been ruled largely by a political elite of businessmen and bankers who appear to have transplanted the Jersey financial sector's culture of silence into all branches of the island's establishment.

Harper says he first encountered this omerta when he was investigating several corrupt police officers who had variously been accused of taking bribes, accessing police databases as favours for associates, and passing on intelligence files.

Is it simply that Jersey's political elite are fearful that negative publicity will damage the island's banking and tourism?

"They don't like bad news, and I don't suppose they like the fact that the bad news is coming from elsewhere." Meaning from someone who's not Jersey-born? He nods.

The Deputy Chief Officer has a wicked sense of humour and a throaty laugh, but they do not disguise his determination to seek justice for the 116 people currently regarded as victims of abuse on the island.

Tragedy struck his own family four years ago when his son-in-law was killed in Iraq while serving with the Royal Military Police. His daughter Raqual was pregnant with the couple's second child at the time.

Harper is close to his two grandchildren and, like any parent or grandparent would be, he is sensitive to the suffering which children have been through in Jersey's dark past.

"Regardless of whether this becomes a murder investigation, we are dealing with victims of alleged child abuse, and some people seem to forget that," he says.

With a defiant dig at some of his predecessors, he adds: "Many of the victims have had no contact with the police previously, other than hostility, and they are telling us they have come forward because they trust the inquiry team. That is a great source of pride for me and for the team."

He also cites the alleged victims as the reason for his controversial decision not to go public with doubts about the "skull fragment". "If I had announced it, the knives would have come out," he says.

"The inquiry team would have been attacked… and my view was that that would have done the abuse victims no good at all. Now I have given my detractors twice the stick to beat us with, but the truth is they didn't need an excuse."

He will retire on August 31, when the inquiry will still be wide open. Will he have mixed feelings? "It will be a huge relief in some ways to leave the pressure behind," he says. "I will miss the people who I'm working with on this inquiry immensely.

It is the best inquiry team I've ever worked with. But if I can tell myself that I've done everything I can do for the victims and for the people working for me then I will be quite content."

Tuesday, 30 August 2011

Less than 50% of the £7.5 million spent on the Haut de la Garenne child abuse investigation was spent while Power and Harper were in charge, the rest has been spent on the cover up.

I want to make another point. I am a child abuse survivor. I am NOT "anti establishment", I am Not an anachist. I believe in law and order, not chaos and lawlessness. I simply want justice, I want to see justice done. I don't want to see politicians and judges persecuted and hounded, and I appreciate that noone is perfect. The problem as I see it is that there is a little knot of very very wicked people who are using the justice system and the media as a shield, and they dont care if they tear up the whole of the system to hide what they have done. Thys need to be brought to justice, and anyone who is shielding any of these wicked people, please, please, just stop shielding them, please.

"Time to take stock"? Shouldn't it have been titled "Time to commit treason" instead?

Dependency or Sovereignty?
Time to take stock
With the kind sponsorship of
Participants:
Sir Philip Bailhache
William Bailhache,
Deputy Bailiff of Jersey
Michael St. J Birt, Bailiff of Jersey
Sir de Vic Carey
The Rt Hon Lord Falconer
of Thoroton, PC QC
HE Sverrir Gunnlaugsson
The Rt Hon Lord Hoffman, PCn
Professor Jeffrey Jowell, QC
Michael J Lagopoulos
Richard McMahon, QC,
HM Comptroller, Guernsey
HSH Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein
Colin Powell, CBE
Sir David Simmons, KA BCH
Dame Heather Steel, DBE
Professor Alastair Sutton
Sir Andrew Wood GCMG
A ONE DAY CONFERENCE AT THE HOTEL DE FRANCE, JERSEY ON FRIDAY 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010
Sir Philip Bailhache
Sir Philip is founding Editor of the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review. He has served successively as Solicitor General, Attorney General, Deputy Bailiff and most recently Bailiff of Jersey (1995-2009). He is Chairman
of the Institute of Law and sits as a Commissioner in Jersey and judge of the Court of Appeal.
William Bailhache,
Deputy Bailiff of Jersey
William was admitted to the English Bar in 1975
and to the Jersey Bar in 1976. He became a Crown Advocate in 1989 and was appointed HM Attorney General for Jersey in 2000. He became a QC in 2000. He was sworn in as Deputy Bailiff of Jersey in 2009.
Michael St J. Birt, Bailiff of Jersey
Michael was called to the English Bar in 1970, qualified as a Jersey Advocate in 1977 and was appointed a Crown Advocate in 1987. He was sworn in as Attorney General for Jersey in 1994 and appointed a QC in 1995. He became Deputy Bailiff of Jersey in February 2000 and Bailiff in 2009.
Sir de Vic Carey
Sir de Vic Carey was Bailiff of Guernsey and ex officio President of the Guernsey Court of Appeal between 1999 and 2005. After retirement from the office of Bailiff he was re-appointed as an ordinary judge of the Guernsey Court of Appeal and continues to
sit as a Lieutenant Bailiff in Guernsey.
The Rt Hon Lord Falconer
of Thoroton, PC QC
Lord Falconer was Lord Chancellor from 2003-2007. He was a minister in Tony Blair’s government for all of its ten year life and as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, had the Channel Islands under his governmental remit.
HE Sverrir Gunnlaugsson
Sverrir has held numerous senior positions in the Icelandic Diplomatic Service. In 1985 he was appointed as Ambassador, and in 1999 Permanent Secretary
of State. From 2003 to 2009 he was Ambassador to the Court of St James. Since 2009 he has been the Icelandic representative on the College of the EFTA Surveillance Authority.
The Rt Hon Lord Hoffmann, PC
Lord Hoffmann served as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009. Prior to that he was a member of the Court of Appeal and a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division. Since 1998 he has been a non-permanent
judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. Between 1980 and 1985 he was a judge of the
Courts of Appeal of Jersey and Guernsey.
Professor Jeffrey Jowell, QC
Jeffrey is Professor of Law at University College London and a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers. He has advised and been involved in the drafting of new constitutions for the Cayman Islands, Serbia, Bosnia, the Maldives, the British Virgin Islands and Luxembourg.
Michael J Lagopoulos
Mike is CEO and Head of RBC Wealth Management London, International. He is responsible for the strategic direction, overall operating and financial results of the international private client businesses. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree and is a Chartered Accountant.
Richard McMahon, QC,
HM Comptroller, Guernsey
Richard was admitted to the Guernsey Bar in 1998.
He became a Crown Advocate and Director of Civil Litigation in 2000, External Relations Policy and Legal Adviser in 2008 and HM Comptroller (Solicitor General) and HM Deputy Receiver General for Guernsey in 2009.
HSH Prince Nikolaus
of Liechtenstein
HSH Prince Nikolaus is Ambassador of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the Kingdom of Belgium and the EU as well as non-resident Ambassador to the Holy See in Rome. He was Head of the Liechtenstein delegation for negotiations on the European Economic Area Agreement from 1990 to 1995.
Colin Powell, CBE
Colin was Economic Adviser and subsequently
Chief Adviser to the States of Jersey between 1969 and 1999. He retired as Chairman of the JFSC in 2009 and continues to advise the States on international affairs. He has been the Chairman of the Offshore Group of Banking Supervisors since 1981.
Sir David Simmons, KA BCH
Sir David was appointed a QC in 1984 and served in the Parliament of Barbados from 1970 to 2001. He served as Attorney-General of Barbados from 1985 to 1986 and 1994 to 2001. He assumed office as the 12th Chief Justice of Barbados in 2002, retiring earlier this year.
Dame Heather Steel, DBE
Dame Heather was called to the Bar in 1963 and practised on the Northern Circuit. In 1986 she became a circuit judge before being appointed a judge of the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench) in 1993. She is
a Judge of Appeal in Jersey and Guernsey.
Professor Alastair Sutton
Alistair is a partner in White and Case LLP, based
in Brussels, and has extensive experience working in the European Commission and in private practice.
A graduate of the University of Aberdeen, he taught international law and European Law before moving to Brussels. He is Visiting Professor at University College, London.
Sir Andrew Wood, GCMG
Sir Andrew served as British Ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1985-1989. From 1995-2000 he served as British Ambassador to Russia and Moldova before retiring from diplomatic service. He currently advises a number of multinationals at the CEO and board level.
Participants Profiles
The Jersey and Guernsey Law Review is delighted to bring some of the world’s leading figures together
to debate the future constitutional position of the Channel Islands in an objective and measured way.
It is increasingly important that our international interests, including our economic interests are protected.
The time has come to take stock and to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of our current constitutional status. This is not necessarily to advocate independence but to argue that we should
be prepared to look in earnest at all the options available to the Channel Islands.
This is a unique opportunity to hear from an exceptional group of participants who are prepared to share their expertise and experience, and to debate the future with an audience of interested Channel Islanders.
Delegate numbers are limited so book early to avoid disappointment.
8.30am Registration
9.00am Welcome & Introduction
Sir Philip Bailhache
Editor of the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review
9.20am Session One:
The Economic Aspects of Sovereignty
Chairman: Sir de Vic Carey
Speakers: Michael J Lagopoulos
Colin Powell, CBE
Followed by a 20 minute panel discussion
10.30am Break
10.50am Session Two:
Framing of a Constitution
Chairman: Dame Heather Steel, DBE
Speakers: William Bailhache,
Deputy Bailiff of Jersey
Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC
Richard McMahon QC,
HM Comptroller, Guernsey
Followed by a 20 minute panel discussion
12.20pm Lunch
1.30pm Session Three:
Small States’ Experience of Sovereignty
Chairman: Michael St J Birt,
Bailiff of Jersey
Speakers: HE Sverrir H Gunnlaugsson
HSH Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein
Sir David Simmons, KA BCH
Followed by a 20 minute panel discussion
2.50pm Break
3.10pm Session Four:
Global Relations
Chairman: The Rt Hon Lord Hoffmann, PC
Speakers: The Rt Hon Lord Falconer
of Thoroton, PC QC
Professor Alastair Sutton
Sir Andrew Wood, GCMG
Followed by a 20 minute panel discussion
4.30pm Closing Remarks
Sir Philip Bailhache
Editor of the Jersey and Guernsey Law Review
4.45pm Conference Close
6hrs
CPD
Introduction
Programme
A certificate of 6 hours attendance will be provided which may count towards
CPD requirements.

Early booking deadline: Tuesday 17th August
Final booking deadline: Friday 3rd September
1st Delegate
Full Rate £295 Early Booking Rate £245
Title: First Name: Surname:
Email Address:
2nd Delegate
Full Rate £295 Early Booking Rate £245
Title: First Name: Surname:
Email Address:
3rd Delegate
Full Rate £295 Early Booking Rate £245
Title: First Name: Surname:
Email Address:
Booking Contact
Title: First Name: Surname:
Company (if applicable):
Email Address:
Tel:
Address:
I enclose a cheque payable to The Jersey and Guernsey Law Review for: £
Please return this form together with payment to:
Carl Methven at Chameleon Group Limited, Meadowlands, Rue a la Dame, St Saviour, Jersey JE2 7NQ
Tel: 01534 615886 Email: carl.methven@businesslife.je
Places will be allocated in strict order of receipt of registrations and payment. To qualify for the early booking rate, booking and payment must be received
by 17th August. Final booking deadline is 3rd September. Payment must be made prior to the conference and no refund of fees will be made for cancellation
of registrations made on or after the final booking deadline. You may substitute a named delegate to replace the original name delegate at any time prior
to the event. The Jersey and Guernsey Law Review reserves the right to cancel or re-schedule the event without prior notice and to amend or alter the published programme in exceptional circumstances.
Booking Form


Monday, 29 August 2011

You won't achieve anything with your illegal activity. I am just a woman who has been abused, actually you have done me a favour by hacking me, because it means I can't use my social networking any more, so I will have be forced to have a break from the computer.

No use you using my accounts to send out any more messages to other people, because people know I am hacked so they will know who it is.

I pray that every time you people attack me he will use other abuse survivors to achieve 100 times more of the dark secrets you people are trying in vain to cover up.

You can't gag or hack the Holy Spirit, the Pharasees tried to 2000 years ago by murdering the Lord Jesus Christ, all they achieved was to make sure the Word of God spread all over the world!

Saturday, 27 August 2011

Last night I was having a discussion with some child abuse survivors and one survivor said that they had been awarded damages for the abuse they suffered, but they have been threatened with with fines and prison by their solicitors if they break the "Silence" Act. I was pretty upset to hear this, and asked that person to post NOT their personal testimony, but the legal document which had threatened them.This is a document that I was shown as a result of that conversation. I haven't had chance to read it thoroughly yet, but my first impression on scanning it was that this is a very intimidating document to give to a victim of institutional abuse, especially if that victim has had their education disrupted as a result of the abuse, as is often the case.

I want to find out if child abuse survivors outside of Ireland have been presented with a document like this one. I would be very interested if anyone who was abused at Haut de la Garenne has recieved something like this.

Number (BLANKED OUT TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THE ABUSE SURVIVOR) of 2002
————————
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002
————————
ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section
1. Interpretation.
2. Establishment day.
3. Establishment of Board.
4. Additional Institution.
5. Functions of Board.
6. Membership of Board.
7. Entitlement to award.
8. Period for making applications.
9. Deceased applicants.
10. Hearing of application.
11. Supplemental provisions to section 10.
12. Settlement of applications.
13. Award of Board.
14. Establishment of Review Committee.
15. Decision of Review Committee.
16. Assessment of Injuries Report.
17. Assessment of injuries regulations.
18. Privilege.
19. Admissibility of certain evidence.
20. Evidence on oath.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
2
Section
21. Advice on financial management of award.
22. Income and award.
23. Special account.
24. Indemnity and contribution.
25. Lodgement of money.
26. Report of Board.
27. Taxation of costs.
28. Prohibition on disclosure of information.
29. Staff.
30. Restriction of Data Protection Act, 1988.
31. Application of Freedom of Information Act, 1997 to certain
records.
32. Amendment of Act of 2000.
33. Regulations.
34. Penalties.
35. Criminal records.
36. Power to remove difficulties.
37. Laying of regulations.
38. Expenses.
39. Short title.
SCHEDULE
————————
Acts Referred to
Children Act, 1908 1908, c. 67
Civil Liability Act, 1961 1961, No. 41
Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act, 2000 2000, No. 7
Data Protection Act, 1988 1988, No. 25
Freedom of Information Act, 1997 1997, No. 13
Income Tax Acts
Local Government Act, 2001 2001, No. 37
Medical Practitioners Act, 1978 1978, No. 4
National Archives Act, 1986 1986, No. 11
Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998 1998, No. 49
Statutes of Limitations
Succession Act, 1965 1965, No. 27
Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 1997, No. 30
————————
Number 13 of 2002
————————
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS REDRESS ACT, 2002
————————
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAKING OF FINANCIAL
AWARDS TO ASSIST IN THE RECOVERY OF CERTAIN
PERSONS WHO AS CHILDREN WERE RESIDENT IN
CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE AND WHO
HAVE OR HAVE HAD INJURIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT
WITH ABUSE RECEIVED WHILE SO RESIDENT
AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH THE RESIDENTIAL
INSTITUTIONS REDRESS BOARD TO MAKE
SUCH AWARDS AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE REVIEW
OF SUCH AWARDS BY THE RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND TO PROVIDE
FOR RELATED MATTERS. [10th April, 2002]
BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:
1.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
‘‘abuse’’, in relation to a child, means—
(a) the wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury
on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child,
(b) the use of the child by a person for sexual arousal or sexual
gratification of that person or another person,
(c) failure to care for the child which results in serious impairment
of the physical or mental health or development of
the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour
or welfare, or
(d) any other act or omission towards the child which results in
serious impairment of the physical or mental health or
development of the child or serious adverse effects on his
or her behaviour or welfare,
and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;
‘‘Act of 2000’’ means the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse
Act, 2000;
‘‘applicant’’ shall be construed in accordance with section 7(1);
‘‘application’’ means an application for an award;
3
Interpretation.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.1
4
‘‘award’’ means a financial award made by the Board;
‘‘Board’’ means the Board established under section 3;
‘‘Chairperson’’ shall be construed in accordance with section 6(1);
‘‘child’’ means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and
cognate words shall be construed accordingly;
‘‘establishment day’’ means the day appointed under section 2 to be
the establishment day;
‘‘functions’’ includes powers and duties;
‘‘injury’’ includes physical or psychological injury and injury that has
occurred in the past or currently exists and cognate words shall be
construed accordingly;
‘‘institution’’ means an institution that is specified in the Schedule;
‘‘medical practitioner’’ means a person registered in the General
Register of Medical Practitioners established under section 26 of the
Medical Practitioners Act, 1978;
‘‘Minister’’ means the Minister for Education and Science;
‘‘prescribed’’ means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister;
‘‘public body’’ means a Department of State, a Minister of the
Government, a court, a health board and a local authority for the
purposes of the Local Government Act, 2001;
‘‘relevant person’’ means—
(a) a person who is referred to in an application as having carried
out the acts complained of in the application, and
(b) in the case of an institution that is referred to in an application
as being the institution in which the acts complained
of in the application were carried out, the person
who is concerned with the systems of management,
administration, operation, supervision, inspection and
regulation of such institution as the institution concerned
may determine and specify in writing to the Board;
‘‘Review Committee’’ has the meaning assigned to it by section 14;
‘‘Review Committee Chairperson’’ has the meaning assigned to it by
section 14;
‘‘spouse’’, in relation to a person, includes a person with whom the
person is or was at a time cohabiting.
(2) References in this Act to abuse of children in institutions or
which occurred in institutions include references to any case in which
abuse of a child took place, not in an institution, but while the child
was residing or being cared for in an institution and the abuse was
committed or aided, abetted, counselled or procured by, or otherwise
contributed to by an act or omission of, a person engaged in the
management, administration, operation, supervision or regulation of
the institution or a person otherwise employed in or associated with
the institution.
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(3) An applicant who was resident in an institution and was trans- S.1
ferred from that institution to another place of residence which carried
on the business of a laundry and who suffered abuse while resident
in that laundry shall be deemed, at the time of the abuse, to
have been resident in that institution.
(4) References in this Act to a person who as a child was resident
in an institution include references to any case where a child was
resident in an institution having been sent and detained there in
accordance with the provisions of the Children Act, 1908.
(5) In this Act—
(a) a reference to a section or a Schedule is a reference to a
section of or Schedule to this Act, unless it is indicated
that reference to some other enactment is intended,
(b) a reference to a subsection, paragraph or subparagraph is a
reference to the subsection, paragraph or subparagraph
of the provision in which the reference occurs unless it is
indicated that reference to some other provision is
intended, and
(c) a reference to any enactment shall, unless the context otherwise
requires, be construed as a reference to that enactment
as amended or extended by or under any subsequent
enactments including this Act.
2.—The Minister shall by order appoint a day to be the establishment
day for the purposes of this Act.
3.—(1) On the establishment day there shall stand established a
board to be known as the Residential Institutions Redress Board
(the ‘‘Board’’) to perform the functions conferred on it under this
Act.
(2) The Board and its members shall be independent in the performance
of their functions.
(3) When the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the
Chairperson, that the Board has completed the performance of its
functions, the Minister may by order dissolve the Board and may,
subject to the provisions of this Act, include in the order such incidental,
ancillary or consequential provisions as the Minister considers
necessary or expedient.
(4) When an order under subsection (3) is proposed to be made,
a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas
and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the
draft has been passed by each such House.
4.—(1) The Minister may, by order, provide for the insertion in
the Schedule of any industrial school, reformatory school, orphanage,
children’s home, special school which was established for the purpose
of providing education services to children with a physical or intellectual
disability or a hospital providing medical or psychiatric services
to people with a physical or mental disability or mental illness in
which children were placed and resident and in respect of which a
public body had a regulatory or inspection function.
5
Establishment day.
Establishment of
Board.
Additional
Institution.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.4
Functions of Board.
Membership of
Board.
6
(2) Where it is proposed to make an order under subsection (1), a
draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas
and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving such
draft is passed by each such House.
5.—(1) The Board shall—
(a) make awards in accordance with this Act which are fair and
reasonable having regard to the unique circumstances of
each applicant,
(b) make all reasonable efforts, through public advertisement,
direct correspondence with persons who were residents
of an institution and otherwise, to ensure that persons
who were residents of an institution are made aware of
the function, referred to in paragraph (a), of the Board,
(c) have regard to the age and health of an applicant when
determining the order in which applications are heard by
it, and
(d) ensure, in so far as is practicable, that hearings are conducted
as informally as is possible having regard to all the
circumstances.
(2) The Board shall have all such powers as are necessary or
expedient for the performance of its functions.
(3) When considering an application under this Act the Board—
(a) shall not address any issue of fault or negligence arising out
of evidence given in an application under this Act, and
(b) shall not make a finding of fact relating to fault or negligence
referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) The Board may—
(a) give directions for the purposes of exercising its functions
under this Act, and
(b) make provision for the taking of evidence on commission
for the purposes of this Act.
6.—(1) The Board shall consist of a chairperson (the
‘‘Chairperson’’) and such number of ordinary members as the Minister
may determine.
(2) The Minister shall appoint the Chairperson and the ordinary
members of the Board.
(3) In appointing the Chairperson and ordinary members of the
Board, the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring
a reasonable balance between the number of women and men so
appointed.
(4) The term of office of a member of the Board shall be for such
period as is specified by the Minister when appointing such member.
(5) (a) A member of the Board may, by letter addressed to the
Minister, resign his or her membership of the Board.
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) A member of the Board may be removed from office by S.6
the Minister.
(6) A member of the Board (other than a member who is the
holder of judicial office) shall be paid such remuneration (if any) and
allowances (if any) as may be determined by the Minister, with the
consent of the Minister for Finance, and members of the Board shall
be paid such allowances for expenses as may be so determined.
(7) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance,
appoint such and so many persons to be members of the staff
of the Board and a person so appointed shall hold office on such
terms and shall receive such remuneration as the Minister for Finance
determines.
7.—(1) Where a person who makes an application (an
‘‘applicant’’) for an award to the Board establishes to the satisfaction
of the Board—
(a) proof of his or her identity,
(b) that he or she was resident in an institution during his or
her childhood, and
(c) that he or she was injured while so resident and that injury
is consistent with any abuse that is alleged to have
occurred while so resident,
the Board shall make an award to that person in accordance with
section 13(1).
(2) A person who has received an award from a court or a settlement
in respect of an action arising out of any circumstances which
could give rise to an application before the Board shall not make an
application to, or be heard by, the Board or be entitled to receive an
award under this Act in respect of those circumstances.
(3) Where a court has made a determination in an action arising
out of circumstances which could give rise to an application before
the Board the plaintiff in that action shall not make an application
to, or be heard by, the Board and shall not be entitled to receive an
award under this Act in respect of those circumstances.
(4) The making of an application to the Board does not involve
the waiver of any other right of action by the applicant.
(5) An applicant shall not, when presenting an application to the
Board, be required to produce to the Board any evidence of negligence
on the part of a person referred to in the application, by the
employer of that person or a public body.
(6) A person who makes an application under this Act and who
gives false evidence to the Board or the Review Committee in such
circumstances that, if the person had given the evidence before a
court, the person would be guilty of perjury, the person shall be
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment
to the penalties applying to perjury.
(7) A determination referred to in subsection (3), shall not include
a determination concerning the Statutes of Limitations or an interlocutory
matter.
7
Entitlement to
award.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Period for making
applications.
Deceased
applicants.
Hearing of
application.
8
8.—(1) An applicant shall make an application to the Board
within 3 years of the establishment day.
(2) The Board may, at its discretion and where it considers there
are exceptional circumstances, extend the period referred to in subsection
(1).
(3) The Board shall extend the period referred to in subsection
(1) where it is satisfied that an applicant was under a legal disability
by reason of unsound mind at the time when such application should
otherwise have been made and the applicant concerned makes an
application to the Board within 3 years of the cessation of that
disability.
9.—(1) Where a person who would have qualified as an applicant
and who did not receive an award or settlement referred to in section
7(2) dies after 11 May 1999 and prior to making an application under
this Act the children or spouse of that person may, subject to subsection
(3), make an application on behalf of that deceased person.
(2) Where an applicant dies after making an application but
before a determination is made by the Board the children or spouse
of that deceased applicant may proceed with the application.
(3) One application in respect of a person referred to in subsection
(1) shall be made to the Board.
(4) Where an award is made in respect of an application pursuant
to this section, the Board shall direct that such award be paid to
the personal representatives of the deceased person referred to in
subsection (1) or the applicant referred to in subsection (2) and that
the personal representatives shall treat such award as if it had been
paid to such deceased person or such applicant immediately prior to
his or her death.
(5) In this section ‘‘personal representative’’ has the meaning
assigned to it by the Succession Act, 1965.
10.—(1) An application may be heard before a sitting of the Board
consisting of a chairperson (who may be a person other than the
Chairperson) and at least one other member of the Board.
(2) The Board shall conduct its hearings otherwise than in public.
(3) An application shall be made to the Board in the manner
determined by the Board.
(4) When making an application the applicant shall provide the
Board with evidence of—
(a) his or her identity,
(b) residence at the institution concerned,
(c) the abuse received while so resident, and
(d) the injury received as a consequence of such abuse.
(5) The applicant, as he or she determines, shall provide the evidence
referred to in subsection (4) either—
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(a) orally, or S.10
(b) by a written statement as prescribed.
(6) For the purposes of establishing the matters specified in paragraph
(a) to (d) of subsection (4), the Board may on its own behalf
or at the request of an applicant, request, by notice in writing, any
person to produce to the Board or to the applicant any document
in his or her possession, custody or control which relates to such
matters.
(7) A person to whom a notice under subsection (6) is addressed
shall provide the Board with the document specified in the notice if
it is in the possession, custody or control of that person.
(8) The Board may hear submissions on behalf of the applicant
and any other evidence it considers appropriate and where evidence
is given in accordance with subsection (5)(b) the Board may request
the applicant concerned to provide oral evidence in respect of the
matters referred to at paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (4).
(9) The Board shall make a preliminary decision as to whether
the applicant is entitled to an award having regard to the matters
specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) and, where appropriate,
any matter arising out of section 11.
(10) The Board may make an interim award where—
(a) it makes a preliminary decision in accordance with subsection
(9) that the applicant is entitled to an award,
(b) is satisfied that it is probable, having regard to all the circumstances,
that an award that is equal to or greater than
the amount of the interim award will be made in respect
of the applicant, and
(c) it is of the opinion that having regard to the age or infirmity
of an applicant the making of an interim award is appropriate
in the circumstances,
and such interim award shall not exceed \10,000 and it shall deduct
the amount of such interim award from the award made in accordance
with section 13.
(11) The Board shall, where it makes a preliminary decision that
the applicant is entitled to an award, request the advisers appointed
under section 11(1) to prepare a report on the injuries, referred to in
subsection (4)(d), received by the applicant and, where the Board
considers it appropriate, may require that such report shall have
regard to any matter arising out of the oral evidence given by the
applicant.
(12) An adviser referred to in subsection (11) shall prepare and
submit such report to the Board and when preparing such report that
adviser—
(a) shall have regard to the medical reports submitted by the
applicant,
(b) shall have regard to the evidence provided on behalf of the
applicant by his or her medical advisers,
(c) shall have regard to the evidence given under subsection (4),
9
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.10
Supplemental
provisions to section
10.
10
(d) may, where that adviser considers it appropriate, carry out
an assessment of the applicant and such assessment may
include conducting an interview with the applicant and
his or her medical advisers, and
(e) shall have regard to the matters specified in section 7(1)(c)
and any requirement of the Board under subsection (11).
(13) An applicant, other than an applicant referred to in section 9,
shall appear in person and may be represented by counsel or solicitor
before the Board.
(14) An applicant or a relevant person and any person giving evidence
on behalf of an applicant or a relevant person may be asked
questions by the Board or by counsel for the Board or by both.
(15) Where an application is made on behalf of a deceased person
in accordance with section 9, the Board shall rely on—
(a) the oral evidence of the children or spouse in respect of the
matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection
(4), and
(b) medical reports submitted on behalf of the deceased person.
11.—(1) The Board shall appoint persons with appropriate medical
and related expertise as advisers to advise generally in respect of
injuries referred to in section 7(1)(c) and, without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing, such advisers shall prepare a report on
injuries of an applicant for the purpose of making an award.
(2) The Board may appoint its own counsel who may call such
expert witnesses to give evidence as the Board may require.
(3) Subject to this Act, the Board shall determine its own procedures
and, in so doing, shall, in as far as is practicable, adopt procedures
which are informal.
(4) The Board may sit in divisions of itself to exercise its functions.
(5) The Board may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies
among its members.
(6) The Board may, in addition to hearing counsel for an applicant,
in respect of any matter before it, seek the assistance of counsel
appointed by the Board in relation to any matter which it regards as
necessary.
(7) The Board shall determine the manner in which an applicant
shall provide evidence of his or her identity.
(8) The Board shall take such reasonable steps as are necessary,
and in accordance with regulations made under this section, to
inform a relevant person of an application under this Act in which
the relevant person is referred to and where the Board so informs
that relevant person—
(a) the Board shall invite that relevant person to provide it with
any evidence in writing concerning such application as
the relevant person considers appropriate,
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) the Board may, on an application by a relevant person, S.11
allow the relevant person to give oral evidence to the
Board in respect of the application,
(c) the relevant person may, in person or through a legal or
other representative, and, with the consent of the Board,
cross-examine the applicant and any person giving evidence
on behalf of the applicant for the purpose of—
(i) correcting any mistake of fact or misstatement relating
to or affecting the relevant person made in the
application,
(ii) defending the relevant person in relation to any allegation
or defamatory or untrue statement, made in
the application, or
(iii) protecting and vindicating the personal and other
rights of the relevant person,
and
(d) an applicant may, in person or through a legal or other representative,
and, with the consent of the Board, crossexamine
the relevant person and any person giving evidence
on behalf of the relevant person,
and the Board shall consent under this subsection if it considers that,
in the interests of justice, it is necessary or expedient to do so for
any of the purposes so specified.
(9) A relevant person may request the Review Committee to
review a refusal of the Board, under subsection (8), and the Review
Committee may either confirm the decision of the Board or direct
the Board to allow the relevant person to give oral evidence in the
application concerned.
(10) Where there is a conflict between the evidence given by the
applicant and the evidence given by a relevant person which cannot
be resolved to the satisfaction of the Board, the Board shall request
the advisers appointed under subsection (1) to prepare a report on
the injuries referred to in section 10(4)(d) and section 10(12) shall
apply to the making of such report.
(11) The Board, having considered a report made pursuant to subsection
(10), shall make a preliminary decision under section 10(9)
and the report prepared pursuant to subsection (10) shall be relied
on for the purposes of section 10(12).
(12) The making of an award to an applicant, notwithstanding a
conflict between the evidence given by the applicant and a relevant
person, shall not constitute a finding of fact relating to fault or negligence
on the part of the relevant person.
(13) The Minister may make regulations concerning the giving of
evidence and the service of documents under this Act.
12.—The Minister may make arrangements to provide for the
settlement of an application to the Board.
11
Settlement of
applications.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Award of Board.
12
13.—(1) The Board shall, when determining an award, have
regard to—
(a) the evidence adduced at a hearing, if any,
(b) the regulations made by the Minister under section 17, and
(c) the report referred to in section 10(12) or, where appropriate,
in section 11(11),
and, where it considers it appropriate, it may hear the oral evidence
of the applicant and his or her medical or other advisers in respect
of the report referred to in paragraph (c).
(2) Where the Board makes an award it shall include an award
for—
(a) any expenses incurred in making an application under this
Act, and
(b) medical expenses incurred by the applicant in accordance
with regulations made under section 17 in respect of treatment
for the injury concerned.
(3) The Board shall, as soon as is practicable, notify the applicant
in writing of the award to him or her.
(4) An applicant may—
(a) accept or reject the award made by the Board to him or her,
or
(b) submit the award to the Review Committee for a review of
the amount of the award made by the Board,
within one month, or such greater period as may be prescribed, from
the date of receiving notice of the award.
(5) If an applicant does not accept, reject or submit for review the
award made to him or her within the period referred to in subsection
(4) he or she shall be deemed to have rejected the award.
(6) Where an applicant accepts an award (including an award
reviewed under section 15) the applicant shall agree in writing to
waive any right of action which he or she may otherwise have had
against a public body or a person who has made a contribution under
section 23(5) and to discontinue any other proceedings instituted by
the applicant, against such public body or such person, that arise out
of the circumstances of the application before the Board.
(7) An award shall not be paid to an applicant unless the applicant
complies with subsection (6).
(8) Where—
(a) an applicant does not wish to receive the entire amount of
an award in a single payment, the Board, having heard
the applicant or a submission on behalf of the applicant,
may in its absolute discretion, direct that the award shall
be paid to the applicant in instalments, or
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) the Board, having heard submissions by or on behalf of an S.13
applicant and from such other person as the Board considers
appropriate, is of the opinion that the applicant is
incapable of managing any moneys received under an
award it shall direct that the award shall be paid to the
applicant in instalments or in any other manner that is
appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the
applicant,
and the applicant may submit a direction under paragraph (b) to the
Review Committee for a review of that direction.
(9) Where the Board decides that any or all of the matters specified
in section 7(1) have not been established to its satisfaction it
shall notify the applicant as soon as practicable of the decision and
an applicant may submit that decision to the Review Committee for
a review of it within one month, or such greater period as may be
prescribed, from the date of receiving notice of the decision not to
make the award.
(10) Where an applicant does not accept an award within the time
and in the manner provided for in this section and proceeds with any
right of action that he or she may have arising out of the same, or
substantially the same, acts complained of in an application, the
Minister, a public body or any other person, will not in such proceedings
to which it is a party rely for the purposes of the Statutes
of Limitations, on the period between—
(a) the date of the application to the Board by that applicant,
and
(b) the date on which the applicant—
(i) abandoned his or her application,
(ii) was adjudged not entitled to an award under this Act,
(iii) rejected an award in accordance with subsection
(4)(a) or subsection (5), or
(iv) rejected a decision of the Review Committee in
accordance with section 15(7) or section 15(8),
whichever of such dates is the later, in bar of any right of recovery
under such proceedings.
(11) An award made under this Act shall not be construed as a
finding of fact that a person who is referred to in an application
carried out the acts complained of in the application.
(12) An applicant who receives an award under this Act shall not
institute civil proceedings arising out of the same, or substantially
the same, acts complained of in an application in respect of which a
public body or a person who has made a contribution under section
23(5) is a party if such proceedings concern the institution referred
to in section 28(4)(b) and the period of residence at that institution
referred to in section 28(4)(c).
(13) The Minister may submit an award made by the Board to the
Review Committee within one month from the date of making the
award.
13
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Establishment of
Review Committee.
Decision of Review
Committee.
14
14.—(1) On the establishment day there shall stand established a
committee which shall be known as the Residential Institutions
Redress Review Committee (the ‘‘Review Committee’’) to perform
the functions conferred on it under this Act.
(2) The Review Committee shall consist of a chairperson (the
‘‘Review Committee Chairperson’’) and such number of ordinary
members as may be determined by the Minister.
(3) When the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the
Review Committee Chairperson, that the Review Committee has
completed the performance of its functions, the Minister may by
order dissolve the Review Committee and may, subject to the provisions
of this Act, include in the order such incidental, ancillary
or consequential provisions as the Minister considers necessary or
expedient.
(4) When an order under subsection (3) is proposed to be made,
a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas
and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the
draft has been passed by each such House.
(5) The Review Committee and its members shall be independent
in the exercise of their functions.
(6) The Minister shall appoint the Review Committee Chairperson
and the ordinary members of the Review Committee.
(7) The term of office of a member of the Review Committee
shall be for such period as is specified by the Minister when appointing
that member.
(8) A member of the Review Committee may, by letter addressed
to the Minister, resign his or her membership.
(9) A member of the Review Committee may be removed from
membership by the Minister.
(10) A member of the Review Committee (other than a member
who is the holder of judicial office) shall be paid such remuneration
(if any) and allowances (if any) as may be determined by the Minister
with the consent of the Minister for Finance and members of the
Review Committee shall be paid such allowances for expenses as
may be so determined.
(11) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance,
appoint such and so many persons to be members of the staff
of the Review Committee and a person so appointed shall hold office
on such terms and shall receive such remuneration as the Minister
for Finance determines.
(12) The Review Committee shall determine its own procedures
and in so doing, shall, in as far as is practicable, adopt procedures
which are informal.
(13) The Review Committee may sit in divisions of itself to hear
applications before it.
15.—(1) The Review Committee shall review—
(a) the amount of an award that is submitted in accordance with
section 13(4)(b) or 13(13),
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) a direction under section 13(8)(b), and S.15
(c) a decision referred to, and submitted in accordance with,
section 13(9).
(2) The Review Committee shall, when reviewing an award, have
regard to—
(a) the regulations made by the Minister under section 17,
(b) the report referred to in section 10(12),
(c) the medical reports submitted by the applicant, and
(d) the evidence given to the Board by the applicant and by any
witness called by the applicant.
(3) The Review Committee, in a review of an award made by the
Board, may—
(a) uphold the amount of the award, or
(b) increase or decrease the amount of the award,
and shall notify the Board and the applicant of its decision as soon
as practicable.
(4) The Review Committee, in a review of a decision referred to
in section 13(9)—
(a) shall review the evidence submitted to the Board and may
hear oral evidence of the applicant and his or her medical
advisers,
(b) may hear submissions on behalf of the applicant and other
evidence as it considers appropriate,
(c) where it is satisfied that the matters specified in section 7(1)
have been established, shall make a preliminary decision
that the applicant is entitled to an award and shall notify
the Board and the applicant of the decision as soon as
practicable, and
(d) where it is satisfied that any or all of the matters specified
in section 7(1) have not been established, it shall inform
the applicant and the Board in writing as soon as is practicable
and shall not make an award.
(5) Where the Review Committee makes a decision—
(a) under subsection (3), it shall notify the applicant and the
Board of the amount of such award and shall direct the
Board to make an award in the amount so notified, and
(b) under subsection (4)(c), it shall notify the applicant and the
Board accordingly and the Board shall regard such
decision as if it was a preliminary decision referred to in
section 10(10).
(6) Where the Review Committee makes notification under subsection
(5)(a), the Board shall, having regard to the period referred
to in subsection (8), make an award in the amount concerned and
subsections (6) to (8)(a) of section 13 shall apply to the award.
15
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.15
Assessment of
Injuries Report.
Assessment of
injuries regulations.
16
(7) Where a decision under subsection (3) has been notified to the
applicant, he or she shall have a period of one month or such greater
period as may be prescribed from the date of receiving the notification
during which he or she may decide in writing either to accept
or reject the decision of the Review Committee and where the applicant
so decides he or she shall notify the Board of the decision.
(8) If the applicant neither accepts nor rejects the decision of the
Review Committee within the period specified in subsection (7), the
applicant shall be deemed to have rejected the decision of the
Review Committee.
(9) The applicant, other than an applicant referred to in section 9,
shall appear in person and may be represented by counsel or solicitor
before the Review Committee.
(10) An applicant and any person giving evidence on behalf of an
applicant may be asked questions by the Review Committee.
(11) Where an application for a review is made on behalf of a
deceased person in accordance with section 9, the Review Committee
shall rely on—
(a) the oral evidence of the children or spouse in respect of the
matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection
(4), and
(b) medical reports submitted on behalf of the deceased person.
(12) The Review Committee may uphold a direction under section
13(8)(b) or direct how such moneys shall be paid as it considers
appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the applicant.
16.—Where the Minister has appointed persons with appropriate
medical and legal expertise to be members of a committee, either
before or after the passing of this Act, for the purposes of preparing
a report—
(a) on the amount of awards for categories of abuse, including
severity of abuse and categories of injuries, and
(b) on advice and recommendations generally in respect of such
awards, including advice on the range of the amount to
be paid in an award having regard to the category of the
abuse and injury,
the Minister shall cause the report to be published as soon as
practicable.
17.—(1) The Minister shall make regulations specifying the
amount to be paid for abuse, injuries and medical expenses and shall,
when making such regulations, have regard to the report referred to
in section 16.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Minister
shall specify in the regulations—
(a) categories of abuse, including categories of severity of
abuse,
(b) categories of injuries, or
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(c) amounts to be paid in an award for such abuse and injuries, S.17
and where appropriate, the range of such amounts having
regard to the severity of the abuse and injuries.
18.—(1) Utterances made by a member of the Board or the
Review Committee, a member of the staff of the Board or Review
Committee or an adviser to the Board or Review Committee, for the
purposes of the performance of the functions of the Board or the
Review Committee, shall be absolutely privileged and such utterances
and documents prepared by the Board or the Review Committee
or any of the other persons aforesaid for the purposes of such
performance and reports of the Board or the Review Committee,
shall be absolutely privileged wherever and however published.
(2) A person whose evidence has been, is being or is to be given
before the Board or the Review Committee, or who produces or
sends a document to the Board or the Review Committee or who
makes a submission to the Board or the Review Committee shall be
entitled to the same privileges and immunities in respect of those
matters as a witness before the High Court in respect of evidence.
19.—A statement or admission made by a person—
(a) before the Board or the Review Committee, or
(b) in a document prepared for the Board or the Review Committee
for the purposes of assessing an application that
is—
(i) sent by a person to the Board or the Review
Committee,
(ii) sent to a member of the Board or the Review
Committee,
(iii) sent to a member of the staff of the Board or the
Review Committee, or
(iv) sent to an adviser appointed under section 11,
shall not be admissible as evidence against that person, or against
any other person who may be liable for the acts or omissions of that
person, in any criminal proceedings or in any civil proceedings in a
court or other tribunal.
20.—(1) The Board or the Review Committee may require a person
giving evidence to it to give his or her evidence on oath or
affirmation.
(2) The Chairperson or a member of the staff of the Board or the
Review Committee Chairperson or a member of the staff of the
Review Committee, authorised in that behalf by the Board or the
Review Committee, may administer, as appropriate, the oath or affirmation
to the witness concerned.
21.—The Board shall establish such procedures as it considers
appropriate through which a claimant who has received an award
may be given advice as to financial management of the award.
17
Privilege.
Admissibility of
certain evidence.
Evidence on oath.
Advice on financial
management of
award.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Income and award.
Special account.
18
22.—(1) For the purposes of the Income Tax Acts, and notwithstanding
any provision of those Acts to the contrary—
(a) income consisting of an award under this Act shall be disregarded
for the purposes of income tax assessment, and
(b) any payment in respect of an award under this Act shall be
treated in all respects as if it were a payment made following
the institution, by or on behalf of the applicant to
whom the payment is made, of a civil action for damages
in respect of personal injury.
(2) In this section ‘‘Income Tax Acts’’ has the meaning assigned
to it by the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997.
23.—(1) There shall be set up on the establishment day a special
account, to be funded from—
(a) moneys provided by the Oireachtas, and
(b) moneys provided in accordance with subsection (5).
(2) Moneys provided in accordance with—
(a) subsection (1)(a) shall be used to pay awards made by the
Board (including awards reviewed by the Review
Committee), and the costs of the Board in administering
this Act, and
(b) subsection (1)(b) shall be used to pay awards made by the
Board including awards reviewed by the Review
Committee.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the moneys in the special account
may be used at any time but shall only be used for the purposes for
which they were voted (and contributed for under subsection (5))
and shall be issued out of that account only by direction of the Minister
for Finance.
(4) Any moneys, including interest (if any), in the special account
may be paid into, or disposed for the benefit of, the Exchequer in
accordance with the directions of the Minister for Finance.
(5) A person, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister
for Finance, may make a contribution to awards and shall pay the
amount to be contributed to the Minister for Finance.
(6) The Minister for Finance shall pay a contribution referred to
in subsection (5) into the special account established under this
section.
(7) In this section ‘‘special account’’, unless the context otherwise
requires, means an account for the purposes of this Act in the joint
names of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, which account
shall—
(a) be an account with the Paymaster General,
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) be subject to such terms and conditions as the Minister for S.23
Finance in consultation with the Minister, may determine,
and
(c) be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
24.—Where an applicant has accepted an award made under
section 13 or section 15 and has complied with section 13(6), no cause
of action or claim for indemnity and contribution or either of them,
whether by third party procedure pursuant to section 27 of the Civil
Liability Act, 1961 or otherwise, in any civil proceedings or otherwise,
shall lie against the State or a public body if such proceedings
arise out of the same, or substantially the same, acts complained of
in an application made under this Act and in respect of which the
applicant is a party.
25.—Notwithstanding any period of time specified in rules of court
for the payment into court, by way of lodgement, of a sum of money
in satisfaction of a claim, where an applicant is deemed to have
rejected an award in accordance with this Act, the Minister may,
within 30 days of such deeming, pay the amount of an award made
under this Act into the court concerned in respect of any civil proceedings
in which the applicant is a party and which arise out of the
same, or substantially the same, acts complained of in the application
made by the applicant concerned under this Act.
26.—(1) The Board shall submit an annual report of its activities
and particulars of its accounts to the Minister at such time as the
Minister directs.
(2) The Board shall submit to the Minister, at such time as the
Minister directs, such additional reports on such matters relating to
the performance by it of its functions as shall be determined by the
Minister.
(3) The Minister shall cause copies of a report made under this
section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(4) A report of the Board shall not identify any applicant, institution
or person referred to in an application.
27.—(1) The Board shall pay to an applicant to whom it has made
an award (including an award that has been reviewed under section
15) a reasonable amount for expenses incurred by him or her relating
to the preparation and presentation of the application as shall be
agreed between the Board and the applicant and in default of such
agreement such expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of
the High Court.
(2) The Board shall pay to an applicant who accepts an award
(including an award that has been reviewed under section 15) the
costs of any proceedings instituted by that applicant and to which
the waiver under section 13(6) applies as shall be agreed between the
Board and the applicant and in default of such agreement such
expenses shall be determined by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(3) Where expenses or costs are agreed or taxed regard shall be
had to any expenses and costs concerning—
19
Indemnity and
contribution.
Lodgement of
money.
Report of Board.
Taxation of costs.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.27
Prohibition on
disclosure of
information.
20
(a) the proceedings referred to in subsection (2), or
(b) a submission to the Investigation Committee,
for the purpose of ensuring that a payment for an item of such
expenses or costs is not made more than once.
(4) In subsection (3) ‘‘Investigation Committee’’ has the meaning
assigned to it by the Act of 2000.
28.—(1) A person (including the Board and the Review
Committee) shall not, subject to this section, disclose information
other than the information specified in subsection (4) or (5) that is
provided to the Board or the Review Committee and obtained by
that person in the course of the performance of the functions of the
person under this Act.
(2) A person referred to in subsection (1) shall disclose information
so referred to for the purpose of the performance of the
functions of the person under this Act.
(3) Documents that are—
(a) provided to or prepared by the Board and where appropriate
the Review Committee, or
(b) prepared by a person for the Board or the Review Committee
in the course of the performance of the functions of
such person as a member of the Board, Review Committee,
a member of the staff of the Board or the Review
Committee or an adviser,
shall not constitute Departmental records within the meaning of
section 2(2) of the National Archives Act, 1986.
(4) The Board shall keep a record of the following information—
(a) the name, address and date of birth of an applicant,
(b) the name of the institution concerned,
(c) the period in which the applicant was resident at the institution,
and
(d) the amount awarded to the applicant under this Act,
and such records shall be available to the Minister for the purposes
of section 13(13) and to any party against whom proceedings are
initiated contrary to section 13(12).
(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1) or any other provision of, or an
instrument made under, a statute or any other rule of law, a person
shall disclose information other than the information specified in
subsection (4) that is provided to the Board or the Review Committee
and obtained by that person in the course of the performance of
the functions of the person under this Act to—
(a) a member of the Garda Sı´ocha´na if the person is acting in
good faith and reasonably believes that such disclosure is
necessary in order to prevent an act or omission constituting
a serious offence, and
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) to an appropriate person (within the meaning of the Protec- S.28
tions for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act, 1998) if the
person is acting in good faith and reasonably believes that
such disclosure is necessary to prevent, reduce or remove
a substantial risk to the life or to prevent the continuance
of abuse of a child.
(6) A person shall not publish any information concerning an
application or an award made under this Act that refers to any other
person (including an applicant), relevant person or institution by
name or which could reasonably lead to the identification of any
other person (including an applicant), a relevant person or an institution
referred to in an application made under this Act.
(7) The Board shall, prior to the making of an order under section
3(3), determine the disposal of the documents concerning applications
made to it.
(8) The Review Committee shall, prior to the making of an order
under section 14(3), determine the disposal of the documents concerning
applications made to it.
(9) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or subsection (6)
shall be guilty of an offence.
29.—(1) In this section a ‘‘relevant body’’ means the Board or the
Review Committee as the case may be.
(2) Subject to the consent of the Minister and the Minister for
Finance, a relevant body may, from time to time, appoint such and
so many persons to be employees of that relevant body as it thinks
fit.
(3) An employee of a relevant body shall be employed on such
terms and conditions as that relevant body, with the consent of the
Minister and the Minister for Finance, may from time to time
determine.
(4) A relevant body shall pay to its employees such remuneration,
fees and allowances for expenses as the relevant body, with the consent
of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, may from time to
time determine.
30.—Section 4 of the Data Protection Act, 1988 does not apply to
personal data provided to the Board while the data is in the custody
of the Board or the Review Committee.
31.—(1) A head may refuse to grant a request (including a request
made before the passing of this Act) under section 7 of the Freedom
of Information Act, 1997 (‘‘a request’’), if access to the records concerned
could, in the opinion of the head, reasonably be expected to
prejudice the effectiveness of the performance of its functions by
the Board or the Review Committee or the procedures or methods
employed for such performance.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a case in which in
the opinion of the head concerned the public interest would, on balance,
be better served by granting than by refusing to grant the
request concerned.
21
Staff.
Restriction of Data
Protection Act,
1988.
Application of
Freedom of
Information Act,
1997 to certain
records.
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
S.31
Amendment of Act
of 2000.
22
(3) Before forming the opinion referred to in subsection (1) or (2),
a head shall consult with the Chairperson.
(4) In this section, ‘‘head’’, ‘‘public body’’ and ‘‘record’’ have the
meanings assigned to them by section 2 of the Freedom of Information
Act, 1997.
32.—The Act of 2000 is amended by—
(a) the substitution for section 20 of the Act of 2000 of the
following sections:
‘‘Miscellaneous 20.—(1) The Minister may, with the consent of costs and expenses. the Minister for Finance and after consultation
with the Commission, make a scheme providing
for the payment by the Commission to a person
who, pursuant to a request of a Committee or a
direction attends before a Committee, of a
reasonable amount in respect of the expenses
incurred by the person in relation to such
attendance.
(2) The Minister may, with the consent and
after consultation aforesaid, make a scheme
amending or revoking a scheme under this
section.
(3) The Commission shall carry out a scheme
under this section in accordance with its terms.
Legal 20A.—(1) The Investigation Committee may representation and costs and expenses. allow a person appearing before it to be represented
by counsel or solicitor or otherwise.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Commission
may pay such reasonable costs arising out of the
representation referred to in subsection (1) to the
person so represented as are agreed between the
Commission and that person or, in default of
agreement, such costs as may be taxed by a Taxing
Master of the High Court.
(3) Where the Chairperson is of the opinion
that a person has failed to co-operate with or provide
assistance, or has knowingly given false or
misleading information, to the Investigation
Committee and there are sufficient reasons rendering
it equitable to do so, the Chairperson may,
on his or her own motion or pursuant to an application
by a person appearing before the Investigation
Committee, refuse to allow the whole or
part of the costs of appearance to such person,
and may make an order directing that the whole
or part of such costs—
(a) of any person appearing before the
Investigation Committee by counsel
or solicitor, as may be taxed by a Taxing
Master of the High Court in
default of agreement, shall be paid to
the person by the first-mentioned person,
or
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
(b) incurred by the Investigation Commit- S.32
tee, as may be taxed by a Taxing Master
of the High Court in default of
agreement, shall be paid to the Minister
for Finance by the first-mentioned
person.
(4) The Commission may pay to a person
(other than a person referred to in subsection
(2)) who makes discovery of documents pursuant
to a direction under section 14(1)(d) appearing
before the Investigation Committee by counsel
or solicitor such reasonable costs of appearing as
may be agreed between the Commission and that
person or, in default of agreement, as may be
taxed by a Taxing Master of the High Court.
(5) Where, in accordance with this section,
expenses or costs are agreed or taxed, the Commission,
or, as the case may be, the Taxing Master
shall have regard to—
(a) any expenses and costs paid to the person
by the Residential Institutions
Redress Board, and
(b) any expenses and costs paid to the person
by the State in respect of any litigation
concerning the same, or substantially
the same, acts complained
of to the Investigation Committee,
for the purpose of ensuring that payment is not
made more than once for any matter arising out
of such expenses or costs.’’,
and
(b) the insertion after section 23 of the following new section:
‘‘Deciding officers. 23A.—(1) The Commission may, with the consent
of the Minister and the Minister for Finance,
appoint persons (referred to in this Act as ‘deciding
officers’) to assist the Investigation Committee
in the carrying out of its functions.
(2) A deciding officer shall have such expertise
in law, medicine, psychiatry, psychology or social
work as the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) A deciding officer shall be appointed subject
to such terms and conditions as the Minister,
with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may
determine.
(4) The Chairperson may, when making a
determination under section 11(6), include such
number of deciding officers as, in the opinion of
the Chairperson, is appropriate.
(5) A deciding officer shall, in respect of a division
of the Investigation Committee, exercise the
functions of a member of that division.’’.
23
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Regulations.
Penalties.
Criminal records.
Power to remove
difficulties.
Laying of
regulations.
Expenses.
Short title.
24
33.—(1) The Minister may make regulations giving effect to this
Act and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such
regulations may provide for—
(a) the manner of payment of costs and expenses of an application
under this Act, and
(b) an official seal of the Board.
(2) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing any matter
referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed.
34.—A person who is guilty of an offence under sections 7(6) and
28(9) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding \3,000
(£2,362.69) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
6 months or both, or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding \25,000
(£19,689.10) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2
years or both.
35.—For the avoidance of doubt, a person who was detained in an
industrial school pursuant to the Children Act, 1908, other than a
person who was so detained as a consequence of a conviction for
an offence, shall not be subject to any disqualification or any other
restriction that is a consequence of a conviction for an offence.
36.—(1) If in any respect any difficulty arises in bringing any provision
of this Act into operation or in relation to the operation of
any such provision, the Minister may by regulations do anything
which appears to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of
removing that difficulty, for bringing that provision into operation or
for securing or facilitating its operation and any such regulations may
modify any provision of this Act or any other enactment so far as
may appear necessary or expedient for the purposes aforesaid.
(2) No regulations may be made under this section after the expiration
of one year after the establishment day.
37.—Every regulation under this Act shall be laid by the Minister
before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is
made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either
such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat
after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled
accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously
done thereunder.
38.—The expenses incurred, including expenses incurred under
section 16, by the Minister in the administration of this Act, shall, to
such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be
paid out of moneys provided for by the Oireachtas.
39.—This Act may be cited as the Residential Institutions Redress
Act, 2002.
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
SCHEDULE
An Griana´n Training Centre, Grace Park Road, Dublin 9
Artane Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dublin 5
Baltimore Fishery School for Senior Boys, Baltimore, Co. Cork
Benada Abbey Industrial School for Girls, Ballymote, Co. Sligo
Carriglea Park Industrial School for Senior Boys, Dun Laoghaire,
Co. Dublin
Cottage Home, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Don Bosco House, Gardiner Street, Dublin 1
Family Group Home, Geevagh, Co. Sligo
Family Group Home, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal
Family Group Home, Wexford
Kirwan House, Ranelagh, Dublin 6
Madonna House, Blackrock, Co. Dublin
Madonna House, Merrion Road, Dublin 4
Martanna House Hostel, Grace Park Road, Dublin 9
Miss Carr’s Children’s Home, 5 Northbrook Road, Dublin 6
Mount Carmel Industrial School for Girls, Moate, Co. Westmeath
Nazareth House, Sligo
Orphanage Schools, Convent of Mercy, Kells, Co. Meath
Our Boy’s Home, 95 Monkstown Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Our Lady of Mercy Industrial School for Girls, Kinsale, Co. Cork
Our Lady of Succour Industrial School, Newtownforbes, Co.
Longford
Our Lady’s Industrial School for Girls, Ennis, Co. Clare
Pembrook Alms (Nazareth House) Industrial School for Girls,
Tralee, Co. Kerry
CPI Marino Special School, Bray, Co. Wicklow
Cork University Hospital School
Harcourt Street Hospital, Dublin 2
Holy Family School for Moderate Learning Disability, Charleville,
Co. Cork
Our Lady of Good Counsel, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, Dublin 12
Sacred Heart Home, Drumcondra, Dublin 9
School of the Divine Child, Lavanagh, Ballintemple, Cork
School of the Holy Spirit, Seville Lodge, Kilkenny, Co. Kilkenny
Scoil Ard Mhuire, Lusk, Co Dublin
Scoil Eanna, School of the Angels, Montenotte, Cork
Scoil Triest, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork
St. Martin’s Orphanage, Waterford
St. Clare’s Orphanage, Harold’s Cross, Dublin 6
St. David’s, Lota, Glanmire, Co. Cork
St. Gabriel’s School, Curraheen Road, Cork
St. Joseph’s Orphanage, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
St. Joseph’s Orphanage, Bundoran, Co. Donegal
St. Joseph’s Orthapaedic Hospital for Children, Coole, Co.
Westmeath
St. Joseph’s School for the Visually Impaired, Drumcondra, Dublin
9
St. Kevin’s Reformatory, Glencree, Co. Wicklow
St. Martha’s Industrial School, Monaghan
St. Martha’s Industrial School, Merrion, Dublin 4
St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital, Baldoyle, Dublin 13
St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital, Cappagh, Dublin 11
St. Mary’s School for Visually Impaired Girls, Merrion, Dublin
St. Vincent’s Centre for Persons with Intellectual Disability, Lisnagry,
Limerick
St. Vincent’s Orphanage, North William St, Dublin 9
St. Aidan’s Industrial School for Girls, Newross, Co. Wexford
St. Aloysius’ Industrial School for Girls, Clonakilty, Co. Cork
25
Section 1(1).
[No. 13.] Residential Institutions Redress [2002.]
Act, 2002.
Sch.
26
St. Ann’s Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Renmore, Lenaboy,
Co. Galway
St. Anne’s Industrial School for Girls, Booterstown, Co. Dublin
St. Anne’s Reformatory School for Girls, Kilmacud, Co. Dublin
St. Anne’s, Sean Ross Abbey, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary
St. Augustine’s Industrial School for Girls, Templemore, Co.
Tipperary
St. Augustine’s, Obelisk Park, Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, Co.
Dublin
St. Bernadette’s, Bonnington, Montenotte, Cork
St. Bernard’s Industrial School for Girls, Fethard, Dundrum, Co.
Tipperary
St. Bridgid’s Industrial School for Girls, Loughrea, Co. Galway
St. Cecilia’s, Cregg House, Sligo
St. Clare’s Orphanage, Harold’s Cross, Dublin 6
St. Coleman’s Industrial School for Girls, Cobh/Rushbrook, Co.
Cork
St. Columba’s Industrial School for Girls, Westport, Co. Mayo
St. Conleth’s Reformatory School for Boys, Daingean, Co. Offaly
St. Dominick’s Industrial School for Girls, Waterford
St. Finbarr’s Industrial School for Girls, Sundays Well, Marymount,
Cork
St. Francis Xavier’s Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballaghadereen,
Co Roscommon
St. Francis’ & St Mary of the Angels, Beaufort, Killarney, Co. Kerry
St. Francis’ Industrial School for Girls, Cashel, Co. Tipperary
St. George’s Industrial School for Girls, Limerick
St. John’s Industrial School for Girls, Birr, Co. Offaly
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Boys, Passage West, Co. Cork
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Boys, Tralee, Co. Kerry
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Ballinasloe,
Co. Galway
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Clifden, Co.
Galway
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls and Junior Boys, Liosomoine,
Killarney, Co. Kerry
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Cavan
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Dundalk, Co. Louth
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Kilkenny
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Mallow, Co. Cork
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Summerhill, Athlone, Co.
Westmeath
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Girls, Whitehall, Drumcondra,
Dublin 9
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys, Ferryhouse, Clonmel,
Co. Tipperary
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys, Glin, Co. Limerick
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys, Greenmount, Cork
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys, Letterfrack, Co.
Galway
St. Joseph’s Industrial School for Senior Boys, Salthill, Co. Galway
St. Joseph’s Orphanage, Tivoli Road, Dun Laoghaire
St. Joseph’s Reformatory School for Girls, Limerick
St. Joseph’s School for Hearing Impaired Boys, Cabra, Dublin 7
St. Joseph’s School for the Visually Handicapped, Drumcondra,
Dublin 9
St. Kyran’s Industrial School for Junior Boys, Rathdrum, Co.
Wicklow
St. Laurence’s Industrial School for Girls, Sligo
St. Laurence’s Industrial School, Finglas, Dublin 11
St. Martha’s Industrial School for Girls, Bundoran, Co. Donegal
St. Mary’s Industrial School, Lakelands, Sandymount, Dublin 4
St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital, Baldoyle, Dublin 13
[2002.] Residential Institutions Redress [No. 13.]
Act, 2002.
St. Mary’s Orthopaedic Hospital, Cappagh, Finglas, Dublin 11 Sch.
St. Mary’s School for Hearing Impaired Girls, Cabra, Dublin 7
St. Mary’s, Delvin, Co. Westmeath
St. Mary’s, Drumcar, Dunleer, Co. Louth
St. Mary’s, Rochestown, Cork
St. Michael’s Industrial School for Girls, Wexford
St. Michael’s Industrial School for Junior boys, Cappoquin, Co.
Waterford
St. Michael’s, Glenmaroon, Chapelizod, Dublin 20
St. Mura’s Orphanage, Fahan, Co. Donegal
St. Patrick’s Industrial School for Boys, Upton, Cork
St. Patrick’s Industrial School for Junior Boys, Kilkenny
St. Paul’s Hospital, Beaumont, Dublin 9
St. Paul’s, Montenotte, Cork
St. Saviour’s Orphanage, Lr. Dominick Street, Dublin 1
St. Vincent’s (House of Charity) Industrial School for Junior Boys,
Drogheda, Co. Louth
St. Vincent’s Industrial School for Girls, Limerick
St. Vincent’s Industrial School, Goldenbridge, Inchicore, Dublin 8
St. Vincent’s Orphanage, Glasnevin, Dublin 9
St. Vincent’s, Navan Road, Dublin 7
Stewart’s Hospital, Palmerstown, Dublin 20
Tabor House, Dublin
Temple Street Hospital, Dublin 1
The Bird’s Nest Home, 19 York Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin
The Los Angeles Homes, Dublin
The O’Brien Institute, Malahide Road, Dublin
Trudder House, Newtownmountkennedy, Co. Wicklow
Warrenstown House, Corduff Road, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15
27